Public Bill Committee

[Frank Cook in the Chair]

Clause 12

Duty to provide indicative annual ranges for net UK carbon account

Gregory Barker: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in clause 12, page 6, line 40, at end insert—
‘( ) Before determining each indicative annual range the Secretary of State must obtain, and take into account, the advice of the Committee on Climate Change.’.
Good morning, Mr. Cook. Clause 12 is important. Conservative Members in the other place did a splendid job in encouraging the Government to introduce indicative annual ranges. The inclusion of the ranges is a significant enhancement of the Bill. Friends of the Earth described the inclusion of the clause as
“one of the most important changes which the Government made to the Bill”,
because it adds political accountability. Members of the Committee will recall that when the Conservative party launched our climate change Bill in advance of the Queen’s Speech in 2007, the inclusion of annual targets was considered an essential part of the primary reason that any five-year carbon budget would stretch across more than one Parliament.
We rightly argued that we should not allow NIMTOism—the new acronym, meaning not in my term of office—to infect carbon budgets. The system is not sufficiently accountable, so a Government could sit through a full term without ever having to report to Parliament on their carbon reduction performance. It is conceivable that a future Government could then dump their failure on a successive Government, who would have to report on the budget in their first year in office, having had little time to do anything about meeting it.
We need no better example of why the annual ranges are necessary than the current Government’s performance on cutting emissions. Despite three manifesto commitments to reduce emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010, emissions have, in fact, increased since 1997, and the Government quietly dropped their 20 per cent. target to just more than 15 per cent. in 2006. That is what can happen without year-on-year accountability. The addition of indicative annual ranges under clause 12 is a significant enhancement of the Bill, and it is a testament to the sterling efforts of our colleagues from all parties in the other place.
Indeed, Lord Rooker spoke favourably of annual accountability when he said:
“annual transparency and accountability about progress towards meeting the budgets are crucial for all of us. Some indication of the Government’s expected trajectory for reductions over the budget period would help in providing them. It is important that there is no divide between any sides of the House on that.”
The Government further stated in the other place that
“setting out an indicative range for the net UK carbon account for each year of the budget period combined with greater clarity about the timescales of policies to take effect...will ensure that the Government of the day can be properly held to account for progress during each year of the budget period, not just at the end of the period.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 February 2008; Vol. 699, c. 496-7.]
As we all agree on that substantive point, I hope that we can also agree that a range without definition is of little practical use to anyone.
For example, if a five-year budget period has a total budget of 500 million tonnes of carbon, it is hardly of any value to say that the indicative annual range will be between 1 million tonnes and 150 million tonnes per year, whereas it would be of real value if the indicative ranges were set out year by year along the lines of year 1, which must be between 115 and 125 million tonnes; year 2, which must be between 105 and 115 million tonnes; year 3, which must be between 95 and 105 million tonnes, and so on.
As the clause is worded, there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to provide such an instructive range. He or she could set the range so broadly as to be practically meaningless. That is why, in amendment No. 53, we are proposing that the Secretary of State seeks advice from the Committee on Climate Change before setting those annual ranges. The committee would approach the exercise with not only an expert but an apolitical and dispassionate eye. That should prevent any unnecessary politicisation of the annual range, which could otherwise be back-loaded, for example, so that much of the effort would fall into the final year of a budget, by which time the Government who had set the ranges might well be out of office.
I have further broad comments on the clause, but they relate to amendment No. 54.

John Gummer: I am sorry to have been two minutes late this morning, Mr. Cook. I make the single point that, if one had the chance to read this morning’s newspapers, one would see just how cynical the public is about politicians of all kinds. It made pretty miserable reading for any of us who recognise that politicians in all parts of the House come to this place to try and make the world a better place—even though we disagree with each other, that is why we are here. Today’s Daily Mail, for example, is even worse than usual in its refusal to believe the better of anyone, of any kind, in any circumstances, from the Prince of Wales to the humblest Back Bencher.
Why I feel strongly about the amendment is extremely simple. We need to provide the public with a mechanism whereby that cynicism cannot easily be given rein. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, in the 97 per cent. of his speech that I was lucky enough to hear, made that point clearly. We need to ensure that there is clear recourse to the Committee on Climate Change in order that the worst may not be thought of politicians.
I have a self-denying ordinance not to praise the Ministers, because it has been bruited abroad that that does them no good. Therefore, I take it as read that they will behave properly. The Secretary of State, for whom I have considerable respect, would certainly behave properly. However, that is not the issue. We are, unusually, legislating for a long period ahead. It is our purpose to create a framework within which we will be working for a long time, under Governments of different persuasions and Ministers of different enthusiasms.
I take that issue hard. During my time as Secretary of State for the Environment, I took a great interest in the design and quality of architecture, never realising that it was my personal interest that led it to be moved forward along the agenda. Others did not have the same interest in the quality of the built environment, particularly my successor, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). He may have had other qualities, but not that one. The result was that that agenda was not taken forward with the enthusiasm and desire that I had wanted.
Climate change is also an area that can too easily rely on the enthusiasm and commitment of individual Ministers. That is why I support my hon. Friend’s amendment. I do not think there is anything in it that could possibly upset anyone, unless they did not want to meet the parameters that I know the Government, the official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Nationalists all want to meet. It does not seem to be an unreasonable amendment.

Phil Woolas: Two brief comments before I explain the Government’s problem with the amendment, although not with its intent. First, my advice to you, Mr. Cook, and to all members of the Committee is not to read the Daily Mail. The problem goes away. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is responsible for the renovation of St. Pancras station. I must put that on the record.
I always find that it helps to go back to the explanatory notes to put the amendments into context, and the explanatory notes for this Bill are especially good. They explain the purpose of clause 12. As the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle eloquently outlined, annual accountability was discussed extensively in the other place and we have been over it many times. Clause 12 addresses those concerns by requiring the Secretary of State to produce a report setting out the indicative range for the trajectory of the UK’s net carbon account over the budgetary period. The word net is important. I shall return to the expected range in a moment. Clause 12 is a critical part of the Bill’s framework and will ensure transparency and accountability for progress for every year of the budget period, not just at the end of the five years.
An indicative annual range is superior to earlier proposals for a single-point annual target because emissions can and do fluctuate from year to year for a variety of reasons, some of which are well outside the control of the Government of the day, such as the weather. A particularly bad winter or a mild winter can have a big impact on annual figures. We all agree that we need a system of annual accountability that can deal with real-world fluctuations while still providing clarity about progress to ensure that the Government of the day can be held to account properly.
Amendment No. 53 would require the views of the Committee on Climate Change to be sought and taken into account in respect of the indicative annual ranges before they could be set. That is not consistent with the role envisaged by all of us for the committee. The committee has been established to provide expert advice on the level of the carbon budget. It is for the Secretary of State and Parliament, in consultation with the devolved Administrations, to make decisions on the level of the carbon budget and the policies needed to ensure that the UK remains within that budget, which has been recommended and to all intents and purposes set by the committee.
In formulating its advice, the committee will need to look at existing and planned Government policies and the estimated impacts of those policies in order to understand exactly what measures the Government have in place to meet a given budget. It is then the job of the Government to draw policy conclusions from the committee’s analysis. That will ensure that the Government of the day retain political accountability to Parliament, and through that to the people, for their decisions. We do not want the committee to be seen to be taking a particular policy position, as that could undermine the credibility of the advice that it provides on the carbon budget and its impartiality in performing its scrutiny function.
It will be vital that the committee’s advice is viewed as credible and authoritative. For that to happen, it must be formulated outside the political arena. The committee must therefore refrain from having a role in the choice of policy mechanisms needed to meet a budget. The question of decisions on the indicative annual range is no different. It will be set based on the Secretary of State’s analysis of the policies that the Government intend to implement in order to meet the carbon budget, and when they will take effect. That is why clause 14 requires that the Secretary of State should set out the time scales for the policies and proposals.
The annual ranges will depend on the policies implemented. Decisions on policy matters should be made by the Government, not the Committee on Climate Change, and we fear that amendment No. 53 would jeopardise that position, as it implicitly requires the committee to provide advice on the Government’s policy mix for meeting their overall carbon budget.
I shall now answer the question from the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle about how wide we expect the range to be. Of course, if it is too wide, it will not fulfil its function and will be meaningless. We must look at the main factors that create uncertainties about annual emissions and assess their likely effect on informing how the range is set.
I have already mentioned the weather; records show that exceptionally cold winters, such as those in 1996 and 2001, caused an increase in emissions by 4 per cent. compared with previous and subsequent years. Another factor is the wider European context and the emissions trading scheme, which covers about half of the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions and allows companies to make decisions over a five-year horizon as to whether and when they abate their emissions. The actual emissions in any one year would not necessarily be a fifth as those policy decisions kick in.
I remind the Committee that the clause refers to the net carbon accounts, which could fluctuate depending on how things are dealt with under the carbon accounting rules. Other important factors include population growth or shrinkage—the annually revised population forecast by the Office for National Statistics directly affects projected emissions. Put simply, the more households that there are in the UK, the higher the emissions are likely to be, although the goal of our housing policy in new build is to neutralise carbon emissions.
The point of having annual indicative ranges, which are preferable, is so that we do not simply take the five-year carbon budget, divide it by five and declare that to be the annual target. We have some flexibility in meeting the budget advised by the committee, which will give the Government flexibility as well as the desired parliamentary accountability. The intention of the amendment is to give more surety, but we fear that it could inadvertently and unintentionally undermine the committee’s impartiality. That is my argument on amendment No. 53.

Gregory Barker: I understand the Minister’s argument, but he has said some things that are slightly troubling, which I will return to. Indicative annual ranges can take into account varying circumstances or unforeseen events, to which the Minister has alluded. The Committee on Climate Change, which I hope will be made up of eminent but sensible people, will be able to take that in its stride.
I find it slightly strange that the Minister mentioned housing numbers as an unforeseen circumstance. It is odd to think that we might suddenly be taken by surprise at the number of houses built in any one year, as I imagine that the Government can foresee the likely number of new houses or dwellings that will be occupied. The weather, I agree, is out of their control, but I expect them to have a firmer grip on the housing stock. The Minister has alluded to severe winters, but there are mild winters, too. We are more likely to experience milder winters than severe ones as global warming continues apace.
The crux of the issue is the Minister’s suggestion—albeit implicit rather than explicit—that targets should follow policy rather than policy should follow targets. He seemed to imply that it was not for the committee to set policy and that we should therefore not have indicative annual targets, because the policy may direct or produce something rather different. Clearly, it should be the other way round. We should have indicative annual ranges, which have inherent flexibility, and policies should be designed to meet those ranges rather than putting the ranges in place once we know the policies. The policy is the servant, not the master, of indicative annual ranges and the overall carbon budget. The danger with that slightly lazy thinking is that it makes for less ambitious policy making and for the slight sense that there is get-out-of-jail-free flexibility on the targets, particularly if in the two or three years of the near term there is some doubt whether the indicative ranges of the short-term trajectory will be met. The trajectory should be the real spur to more ambitious policies by Governments of whatever political hue.
The case for indicative ranges is very clear, and I have not been persuaded by any argument other than that they should be there. However, the Minister has pointed out his belief that that point is already in the legislation. Clause 12(1) sets out a duty to provide Parliament with a report setting out annual indicative ranges for the UK. For the elimination of doubt, I would have preferred that clause to be tightened by our amendment, but if the Minister is going to resist on that point, I will not push the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Gregory Barker: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in clause 12, page 6, line 41, leave out from ‘which’ to end of line 43 and insert
‘the net UK carbon account for the year must fall in order to meet the carbon budget for the relevant budgetary period’.
Amendment No. 54 directly relates to our previous discussion. It is informed by our concern that indicative annual ranges could be politicised, particularly in a period of likely political change, when the end of the carbon budgeting period would be likely to fall within the term of a new Government. That could lead, if not to political shenanigans then certainly a lack of ambition or other priorities on the part of the Government of the day, whoever they are.
To prevent that situation from arising, we have tabled amendment No. 54, which would put a requirement on the Government to produce an annual range that is tight enough to meet the trajectory required to meet the carbon budgets. As clause 12 stands, all that the Government need to do is predict where the carbon account should be in any given year. Amendment No. 54 would ensure that the annual range is set so as to fall inside the net carbon account for that budgetary period, which would necessitate tightening the annual range to a more meaningful figure.
We are not a long way apart from the Government. Indeed, Lord Rooker, during the passage of the Bill through the Lords, said:
“We need a system of annual accountability that can deal with these real-world fluctuations and uncertainties but which still provides sufficient clarity about progress to ensure that the Government of the day can be held to account appropriately... setting out an indicative range for the net UK carbon account for each year of the budget period... will ensure that Government of the day can be properly held to account for progress during each year of the budget period, not just at the end of the period.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 February 2008; Vol. 699, c. 497.]
That is the crux of amendment No. 54. We believe that tightening the annual ranges to a more meaningful figure will help the Government of the day and inform this legislation.

Michael Weir: I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s point, but, given the earlier discussion on the ability of Ministers to amend the carbon budget within the five-year period, how would his amendment fit within that, as it would mean that the range has to show a fall within each year of the five-year budget?

Gregory Barker: I will repeat the amendment for the hon. Gentleman:
“the net UK carbon account for the year must fall in order to meet the carbon budget for the relevant budgetary period”.
That is what we need to be aiming for. If that budget were not met, an adjustment would be required in the following year, but we should not anticipate that the budget will rise or that the trajectory will be anything other than down.
We all accept that there could be unforeseen circumstances, but we do not accept that there are foreseen circumstances in which we would anticipate a rise in the budget. If we can see factors that are likely to push up carbon emissions, we should take other actions ahead of time in other parts of the economy to depress carbon emissions. The whole point of flexibility is to allow us to deal with unforeseen events, which can only be addressed with the benefit of hindsight.

Steve Webb: Will the hon. Gentleman help me with my understanding of the clause, because I have become more confused? In subsection (2), does “fall” mean decline? It means fall within a range—in other words, the provision states that an indicative annual range is a range within which the figure must fall. That does not mean that the figure must go down; it just means that the figure must fall within the range. Am I right in that understanding?

Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman is correct, but so too is the assertion that the trajectory must be met. Obviously, the trajectory is declining, and we do not anticipate that it will rise. The only reason why it would rise is unforeseen circumstances. Does the Minister foresee any circumstances in which we would anticipate the trajectory rising and not take preventive action?

Phil Woolas: My understanding is the same as the hon. Gentleman’s—“to fall” in subsection (2) means to lie within the five-year budget. I cannot envisage circumstances in which the trajectory would not fall, unless the American presidential election throws up something really unexpected.

Gregory Barker: I thank the Minister for that clarification, and it has been useful to raise our concerns. I am looking forward to what the Minister has to say on amendment No. 54.

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling a helpful amendment. The amendment sounds like common sense, but I did a bit of digging and the issue boils down to the difference between “expects” and “must”. Let me explain—my argument is convincing and I am going to use maths.
The clause requires the Secretary of State to set out the indicative annual range within which he “expects” the net UK carbon account to fall—to lie within—for each year of the budget period. Amendment No. 54 would change that to the range within which the net UK carbon account “must” fall to meet the carbon budget. I consider the amendment unnecessary, given the existing provisions in the Bill about both the Government’s duty to meet the five-year carbon budget and the strong framework for annual accountability. By inserting “must”, the amendment would effectively change the budgetary period to an annual one, which is not the intention.
Let me explain the practical problems.
The way in which the Bill is worded makes it clear to Parliament, and to everyone else, whether the Government are taking the necessary actions throughout a budgetary period to ensure that the budget is met, but the Government will not be acting unlawfully if emissions increase, although I imagine that they could increase only slightly beyond the level that the range sets out. Underpinning that, clause 5 places a duty on the Government to ensure that the net UK carbon account for a period does not exceed the carbon budget—the five-year period.
That means that the indicative annual ranges will effectively have to be set with a view to meeting the budget. No matter where we are within the range each year, at the end of the period we must still meet the budget. In addition, there is the strong annual framework that I have spoken about. Under clause 35, the annual report by the committee must set out, inter alia, whether the budget is likely to be met. That is part of the process which, I think, the other place urged upon us; certainly, the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee did.
I am not sure how amendment No. 54 would work in practice, as there would be both a budget that had be met and a range for each year, which also had to be met. The range recognises that emissions fluctuate—we are agreed on that—so it would be possible for the net UK carbon account to lie within the range for each year of a budget, but for the total net carbon account to exceed the budget at the end of the period, because if we hit the top of the annual range each year, that would, by definition, be greater than the five-year budget. There is, therefore, a practical problem with changing “expects” to “must”. My argument is that it essentially makes the annual period the budget and not a range, and mathematically, the possibility of hitting the top of the range for each of the five years would defeat the five-year budget target, which is more important.

John Gummer: That is a good explanation. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to recognise the thought behind this amendment and others, which was admirably expressed by the hon. Member for Angus. If one looks at how the Bill must be written, the Government should be able to make alterations, which may be up or down. Those of a cynical disposition might say that that is all very well, but if the Government were so minded, they could defeat the whole purpose of the Bill. We know that it would be difficult, within the parliamentary arrangements, for that to happen. It would be helpful, however, if the Minister undertook to identify other parts of the Bill that exemplify the points that he made in accepting the reasonable nature of the amendment. This is one of those occasions where we must ensure that we are getting it right and meeting public expectations. I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Angus said, both today and in previous sittings.

Phil Woolas: I have been reflecting that perhaps The Guardian is even more cynical than the Daily Mail. It certainly puts me in a worse mood. I can do what the right hon. Gentleman requests. I do not believe that in the other place there was a challenge to the point that he makes. I made reference to the interrelationship with clause 5.
I shall briefly put my mathematical argument, which I think is a convincing one. Let us say that the relationship between a range within which emissions must fall and an overall budget did not work. Suppose the budget is 100, and for each year of the period the range is set between, for the sake of argument, 15 and 25. If the net carbon account for each year was 23, 22, 24, 25 and 21, we would still have complied with amendment No. 54, which states that the net carbon account “must” fall within the range, but we would have missed the five-year budget.

Martin Horwood: The Minister’s maths are good, but his politics are less good. The annual targets do not release the Government from the obligation to meet the five-year budget. The mathematical possibility that the top of the range could be hit five years running and the budget therefore missed does not mean that the budget must not be met. That still applies. There are two sets of complementary targets. Of course, if the top range of the budget for the annual targets were hit repeatedly, budgets in later years would have to be made tighter and lower.

Phil Woolas: That is why I said that the problem is the word “necessary”. The amendment is unnecessary because of the point made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. By inserting the word “must”, a duty is placed on the Secretary of State under clause 12 that could be used to override the obligation that we spent three hours debating earlier. It confuses budgets and annual ranges.

Martin Horwood: Again, the Minister is mathematically right but politically wrong. The problem is not that the maths do not add up, but that they would need to be added up only after the subsequent general election. By supporting the amendment together with the Conservative Front Benchers, we seek to hold the Government more precisely to account on an annual basis.

Phil Woolas: I am glad the hon. Gentleman accepts my maths, even if he does not agree with me on the policy. I do not believe that the amendment achieves what he wants it to do. In fact, it could achieve the opposite. In the run-up to a general election, the Government could set the annual indicative figure at the top of the range. That would be within the law under the amendment, but outside the law under the earlier obligation to meet the five-year carbon budget. That would create political confusion. Precisely because I do not want to do that, the amendment is unnecessary.
The amendment would take us into an area where the annual indicative range would effectively become an annual budget. That is not what we are trying to achieve here or in the other place. I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts that my policy is right, that my politics are right and not particularly partisan, as this will happen in the future, and that clause 5 overrides the need for amendment No. 54.

Gregory Barker: I have listened carefully to the Minister and have endeavoured to follow his maths. His point is persuasive. I understand and appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham that setting more robust indicative annual ranges does not in any way negate or offset the Government’s legal obligations to meet the carbon budget. However, I am mindful of the Minister’s point that inserting the word “must” could call into question the supremacy of the five-year carbon account, and we do not want uncertainty or confusion in the Bill.
Clarity is desirable, but I accept that the amendment may not be the best way of achieving that. We will look again at the issue. In an ideal world, there remains a case for tighter, clearer and more effective annual indicative ranges within the context of a finite five-year carbon budget. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Phil Woolas: We have not touched on subsections (3) and (4), which are important. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that subsection (1) states that the Secretary of State “must” lay before Parliament, while subsection (3) states that the Secretary of State “must” consult the other national authorities. It is important that reference is made to the devolved Administrations. Subsection (4) states that the Secretary of State “must” send a copy, an imperative repeated in clause 13. I hope there is consensus on the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Duty to prepare proposals and policies for meeting carbon budgets

David Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in clause 13, page 7, line 13, leave out subsection (3).

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 55, in clause 13, page 7, line 13, leave out ‘, taken as a whole,’.

David Maclean: Amendment No. 39 suggests that we remove subsection (3). If, by any inadvertence, I pressed it to a Division and if, by any inadvertence, it was accepted, we would delete the words
“The proposals and policies, taken as a whole, must be such as to contribute to sustainable development.”
Let me make it clear that I am passionately committed to sustainable development. I do not wish to remove the subsection from the clause, but I am advised that such a suggestion is a means by which we can discuss matters. I want to find out what the Government mean by sustainable development, hence my proposal that we remove those words from the Bill. My remarks will be brief because I want to hear the Government’s interpretation of “sustainable development” and to know what their policies and proposals, taken as a whole, will look like if we are to ensure that they contribute to sustainable development.
I shall define what sustainable development is not. What is unsustainable development? I like the definition that an unsustainable situation is one where the natural capital—the sum total of nature’s resources—is used up faster than it can be replenished. Sustainability requires that human activity uses nature’s resources only at a rate that can be replenished naturally.
Inherently, the concept of sustainable development is intertwined with the concept of carrying capacity. Theoretically, the long-term result of environmental degradation is the inability to sustain human life. Such degradation on a global scale could imply the extinction of humanity. I will not go down that route, which I explored in detail last week in the context of biodiversity and rain forests.
I am passionately committed to sustainable development because it is one of the main things that I spent a lot of time negotiating at Rio. When, as a Minister, I had to negotiate a working breakfast with the Chinese at 7 am, with the Indians at 8 am and with the Americans at 9 am, I needed a sustainable biodiversity system myself to survive. Agenda 21 was one of the key documents that was signed and we negotiated every word of it. As an incoming Minister, I had no idea of the importance in UN-speak of getting each word correct. If we had accepted the sloppy word, it would have meant £3 billion extra being paid into some fund. Our representatives were cautious as we negotiated the words.
Since 1992 in Rio, the term “sustainable development” is thrown about everywhere. With all due respect, I have a parish council that puts down a new little park bench on the grass with a couple of daffodils and says that it is fulfilling Agenda 21, the sustainable development agenda. In some ways, the term is being diminished. There is utter confusion about its meaning.
With due deference to the current Government and to the Government of whom I was privileged to be part, I believe that the Brits are pretty good at defining such matters. I left Rio understanding the meaning of “sustainable development”, and I am certain that the Government have a clear concept of its meaning. We should impose more on the rest of the country and the rest of the world, because our concept is probably right.

Gregory Barker: My right hon. Friend is making another important point. I wholeheartedly agree with him. “Sustainable development” is widely misused. A large part of the problem is that it has been confused with the term “sustainable growth”.

Frank Cook: Order. I appeal to members of the Committee to address their remarks to the Chair.

Gregory Barker: I beg your pardon, Mr. Cook, for my discourtesy.
The problem is that sustainable development has been confused with sustainable growth. Often, when people use the term “sustainable”, it has nothing to do with environmental sustainability, but means growth that will go on and on and never end.

David Maclean: My hon. Friend is right, and that could be a justifiable definition of “sustainable development”. I conclude with these remarks. The term is in the Bill, but it is not defined—I cannot find a definition of “sustainable development” in the Bill. I suspect that this subsection is one where Government advisers will say “Well, Minister, if it is deleted, so what? It does not remove anything from the Bill. If it stays in, so what? Who cares? It does not add anything to the Bill either.”
I want the provision to mean something, so when people look through the Bill and come across the 12 pages on carrier bags and the bit on waste and garbage—they will not see any mention of rain forests or biodiversity—they will at least see “sustainable development” and say, “Ah! That means X.”

Frank Cook: Order. It is difficult for the Chair to tell who is rising if hon. Members do not rise.

Gregory Barker: Clause 13 is an important part of the Bill. It requires the Government to prepare a programme of emissions reductions in order to stay within the carbon budgets established by the Bill. However, we must be mindful that in order to reach macro-level targets, by which I mean national and international level climate change mitigation, many micro-level projects must be carried out. There is a responsibility on us, as policy makers, to ensure that we do not undermine the natural environment at a local level in the process of trying to save it on a global level.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and I tabled our amendments to get the Government to explain exactly how they interpret sustainable development, taken as a whole, as opposed to assessing each individual policy and proposal on the grounds of its unique sustainability criteria. My right hon. Friend did an excellent job if raising the issue of sustainable development as a term. I wholeheartedly agree with him that the term is often meaningless and is sometimes used as greenwash. I am not suggesting that that is the case with this Bill, but it happens frequently elsewhere. A definition of sustainable development would help to inform the wider debate around environmental issues as a whole, and perhaps bring some clarity and rigour back to our language on this most important of debates nationally.
Amendment No. 55 would require the removal of the phrase “taken as a whole”, which currently appears in line 13 of clause 13. Its removal would require each individual mitigation option to be assessed against the principles of sustainability, rather than assessing proposals and policies only as a whole in the round. That would allow a Government to appraise the different mitigation options available and choose accordingly, rather than only viewing the sustainability of a policy on a macro level.
One need look only at the unfortunate example of biofuels to see that just because the ultimate Government objective is sustainability, it does not mean that the policy goals to get there are themselves, largely through perverse or unintended consequences, inherently sustainable. It is all well and good to say that one cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs, but surely everyone in Committee agrees—I know that my right hon. Friend agrees—that it is nothing short of sheer madness to chop down the world’s single most precious natural resource, the pristine rain forests, in the name of the environment to achieve a nominal biofuel target.
While reducing emissions from vehicles is an important part of reducing our overall carbon pollution, if we can only meet the requirements of the biofuels directives at the price of the Borneo rain forest, it would be a Pyrrhic victory—target—indeed. A more sustainable option, for example, would be to improve the fuel efficiency of our cars and make significant transport emissions reductions, while at the same time developing a biofuels policy that does not accelerate the destruction of the lungs of the earth or contribute to the extinction of the orang-utan or less cuddly species.
We understand that there will be difficult choices in assessing our options for decarbonising the economy—it will not always be a win-win situation. However, as responsible stewards of today’s environment, as well as tomorrow’s world, we want, as far as it is possible to do so, to ensure that those choices are made transparently and on the basis of a clear definition of sustainability, rather than exclusively through the lens of cost-effectiveness or the overarching 2050 emissions-reduction targets.
For that reason, Conservative Members in the other place successfully argued for the requirement that the Government’s programme of action should meet the carbon budget in the Bill and be underpinned by the principles of sustainable development. In doing so, the Government saw fit to introduce a caveat into clause 13, which states that policies to achieve our interim and long-term targets “must”, when
“taken as a whole...contribute to sustainable development.”
In light of that, will the Minister clarify his interpretation of that phrase? I want to know that, in striving to achieve the emissions-reduction targets to which all of us in this place are committed, we are not legislating to allow Government policy to ride roughshod over short-term or immediate sustainability concerns.

Martin Horwood: It is good to be serving under your chairmanship again, Mr. Cook.
The two amendments raise important issues, and it is particularly important that amendment No. 55 is passed. Looking for a definition of “sustainable development”, I can trump the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border by going back to 1987 and the report for the UN by Gro Harlem Brundtland, “Our Common Future”. That defined sustainable development as
“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”,
which is a wonderfully classic and succinct definition.
I plucked that definition from the website of the Sustainable Development Commission, which has rightly highlighted the risk that the various definitions of sustainability, which include social and economic factors as well as environmental ones, can be used to muddy the debate and allow unsustainable policies to go forward. In particular, economic sustainability is often taken to mean “business as usual”, and it is used to justify policies that are the exact reverse of sustainable when examined from an environmental perspective. The biofuels example mentioned by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle is interesting, although, frankly, a policy that allowed unsustainable biofuels to form the basis of our future biofuels policy would not be “sustainable” under any of the definitions.
A rather better example, which is specifically the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, involves setting the shadow price of carbon, which had a direct impact on the decision to endorse the third runway at Heathrow. The precise definition of the shadow price used by DEFRA in effect reduced the social cost in environmental terms of the Heathrow third runway from some £13.5 billion, which it would have been if the methodology applied by the Stern report had been used, right down to £4.8 billion, thereby making the difference between that third runway going ahead or not. That is a brilliant example of how the use of “sustainable development” needs to be precisely defined. In that sense, taken as a whole, one could say that the third runway at Heathrow is part of a package that the Government might excuse as “sustainable” in the medium term. Looked at in isolation, however, it is clearly not a sustainable policy.

John Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that another example that illustrates that point is the way in which the Government make their judgment about sustainable development and the protection of the sea coast and rivers through the Environment Agency? By changing the terms, what properly used to be considered as a matter for defence is now being abandoned, because points are not awarded to anything that might mean protecting the natural and historic environment. Again, that issue concerns the definition of what is sustainable.

Martin Horwood: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman; he obviously has expertise in this matter relating to his past responsibilities and his constituency. He has made an important point, although the sustainability of sea defences must be considered from an environmental perspective as well as from a local one.
In conclusion, definitions are important, and perhaps the Minister will address the relative importance of economic and environmental sustainability in his remarks. In light of the Stern report, we know that long-term economic sustainability is intimately linked to the environment, although in many parts of government there is still the temptation to prioritise short-term economic growth over true environmental sustainability.

Phil Woolas: The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border has referred to Agenda 21. He made the important point that the profound effect of that conference was to set out a process that has significantly changed how we and other countries look at the world. It has had a significant effect on our analysis of economics, and it challenged some of the basics of supply and demand economics in a beneficial way. It has been noted that, on current estimates, we are using the resources of three planets when we only have those of one. That is not sustainable and people understand that.
I will go into the technical details to explain the Government’s approach. The purpose of the clause is to require the Government’s proposals for meeting carbon budgets to contribute to sustainable development. That is central to Government policy—we want to live within environmental limits and we can only do so by means of a sustainable economy. That policy is partly expressed through the Sustainable Development Commission, which was established in order to provide scrutiny and encouragement and to ensure that Whitehall, and its wider tentacles, are acting sustainably.
An expression of the meaning of sustainable development is within the SDC’s remit, and I will outline it for the Committee. The principles of sustainable development are ensuring a strong, healthy and just society, living within environmental limits, achieving a sustainable economy, promoting good governance and using sound science responsibly. Those principles were outlined in Rio.

Gregory Barker: Those terms are themselves open to interpretation. What does the Minister believe a sustainable economy actually means? That phrase is often abused or misused.

Phil Woolas: A sustainable economy is a low-carbon economy that puts a net contribution to carbon in the air in a downward direction. It is about not only carbon, but how we ensure that we recycle and reuse resources without a net depletion of the earth’s natural resources, including biodiversity. I am getting too academic—for the Committee as a whole, not particularly for you, Mr. Cook—and you are going to pull me back. I wish that I had not said that.
Let me turn to amendment No. 39. To ensure that we meet our objectives for the five principles, we require that every Department publishes a sustainable development action plan. In addition, the impact assessment process, which must be applied to every new policy, requires appraisals of the environmental, social and economic costs and benefits of policies. As hon. Members know, we try to build the idea of sustainability that stems from Rio into everything that we do. The reason for enshrining the principle in legislation, therefore, is to ensure that policy makers keep applying good sustainable development in future years and under future Governments. We also expect to be closely scrutinised by Parliament against the sustainable development requirement in the Bill.
The Government added subsection (3), which the amendment would remove, in the other place. We were responding to the strong views held there, with which we agreed, that the proposals and policies should contribute to sustainable development. For the reasons that I have explained, that is important and something that should be retained. I understand the intention behind amendment No. 39, but it would not achieve that aim.

David Maclean: Does the Minister mean that the Bill should contribute to sustainable development in the UK only, or that the policies and proposals in the Bill should help to contribute to sustainable development in the world, which would allow carbon trading and so on?

Phil Woolas: Within the world. Our sustainability is dependent on that point. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the often arduous process of international agreement. The acceptance of sustainable development in United Nations forums, and the fact that it is written into treaties, is extremely important for this country and the rest of the world. To try to extract that would be practically impossible in terms of the global economy and dependence on resources, food and so on. That would also take us back to the debate on clause 1, which you, Mr. Cook, will not let me return to.
Amendment No. 55, which relates to achieving sustainable development, is about creating the right balance. We need to ensure that the UK’s package of policies for reducing emissions maintains the balance among the key elements of sustainable development. It would be a good idea to compare this policy with the carbon budget itself. Within the context of meeting a carbon budget, some Government policies may give rise to increased emissions, but the important principle is that the total net UK carbon account should be restricted. Given that policies to meet budgets are in that way considered as a whole, it makes sense that they should contribute to sustainable development as a whole. I have already set out the existing processes that are applied to every new policy individually.

John Gummer: I am unhappy about that particular part of the explanation. For example, the Ministry of Justice is just about to take over a newly refurbished building that used to be the Home Office. Despite considerable efforts, the Ministry of Justice still refused to accept that putting in hydrofluorocarbon-driven air conditioning was wholly contrary to any concept of sustainable development. It said that, taken as a whole, what it was doing was better than what was there before. Of course, it was Mr. John Gieve who did that, as is the case on many such occasions. The fact of the matter is that the one get-out that every civil servant and every Minister has is to say, “Taken as a whole, our policies are right, but we have an excuse for this one.” The new Home Office had the same excuse. It said that it had signed up to the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive, which would not allow non-HFC air conditioning. I use that example because, after all, HFCs are 2,000 times as damaging to the climate as CO2. Unless we take everything into account and do not allow Departments to get away with “taken as a whole”, we will not win the battle.

Phil Woolas: I felt uncomfortable in putting the argument because I knew that the right hon. Gentleman would come up with an example that would be difficult to justify. In practice, under the new regime in the Bill, the carbon reduction commitment will include Whitehall Departments, so the “taken as a whole” excuse will be removed. I know that he will welcome that in the real world.
My second argument is stronger and more convincing. Consider the opposite situation, in which one had to judge every action and policy as part of the whole and to rule out any action or proposal that, in and of itself, was damaging according to the sustainability criteria. An ambulance trip that used polluting fuels, taken as a whole, would not be allowed, and one could consider other examples. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head in mystification, but that is a good example.
There are times when actions are necessary. The impact of the action may be negative, but it can contribute to an action that is positive overall. It is rather like asking which is the most important wheel on the car—the front right, the front left, the back right or the back left—when all are needed.

John Gummer: On the Minister’s example of the ambulance, there can be no one alive who would not agree that it would be a contribution to sustainable development to ensure that somebody got to hospital in time. That must be the serious answer to the question. No one would say that we should not do something because it costs a certain amount of carbon to do it.
However, a question must be asked about the individual action. We cannot allow an individual action to be smothered by the generality of “taken as a whole”. I cannot imagine a single proper action that would be stopped by the removing the phrase “taken as a whole”, but I can imagine many improper actions that would be more difficult if the excuse did not exist. I believe that in the Minister’s heart of hearts he knows that taking that little bit out would not put anyone in a difficult position. Leaving it in will mean that they will go on doing the things that they do now, as we have seen in the two examples that I gave.

Phil Woolas: I did not find the right hon. Gentleman’s argument against my ambulance analogy very convincing. I thought that I did well in picking that example against the much tougher example of his experience of the Government Department.
Let me reinforce my point. By including the phrase “taken as a whole”, we are allowing for the carbon budget, and the policies and proposals to meet it, to allow an increase in emissions in some areas so long as they are paid for, and more so, elsewhere in the economy.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham said that we had supported the third runway at Heathrow. Let me be clear about the Government’s policy. We said that we would support the development of the third runway, but only if we could be confident of meeting the strict environmental conditions set out in the White Paper. There is clearly a net judgment in all these matters. If one were simply to delete “taken as a whole” from subsection (3), that would not allow our economy to function properly. It would not allow people to go about their daily business. It is the whole that we are trying to address, not each individual part. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal continues to look bemused.

John Gummer: The Minister has explained the difference between us. I do not believe that we should do anything that cannot be said to contribute to sustainable development. That is why I am opposed to the third runway at Heathrow, which is nonsense, and I am certainly opposed to reworking the figures to make that fit the environmental requirements, which is what the Government did, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham pointed out. However, the point is that the Minister must believe that the third runway at Heathrow contributes to sustainable development, because if it does not contribute to sustainable development, he cannot support it. That is the problem for us. We are committed to a concept that nothing of that kind should be done unless it contributes to sustainable development. If it is unsustainable, we should not do it. That is why Opposition Members are very strongly opposed to the methodology that the Government are using. That is why the phrase “taken as a whole” is so dangerous.

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He has outlined a principle very clearly, and I admire him for that. He is right that I do not agree with him. I do not accept that we can run our economy in a sustainable way, taken as a whole, based on the principle that he has outlined. That would prevent us from doing many of the things that we already do, and one could argue that in all sorts of ways. I will stick with my ambulance example. He says that if there is a policy in isolation that does not in and of itself contribute to sustainability, we should not do it. I think that there should be other judgments—it might depend on who is in the back of the ambulance.
Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of Ministers’ responsibilities. Let us suppose that it was my certain belief, based on advice, knowledge and certain communication—I shall deliberately choose the difficult example of Heathrow to try to pursue my argument—that a failure to expand Heathrow would inevitably result in an expansion of Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol. I am not saying that, just in case the journalists are quoting me out of context, as they never do in either the Daily Mail or The Guardian. However, let us suppose that, and that the policies of the Governments of the day of France and the Netherlands did not impose environmental criteria on Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol and excluded them from their considerations. Let us say, therefore, that the emissions caused by the expansion of aviation at those two airports would be greater than those predicted as a result of Heathrow. What would be the right decision under the right hon. Gentleman’s principle?

John Gummer: But then the hon. Gentleman would be making what he should be making: a decision on sustainability. He is saying that he will have looked at the circumstances not in the round or as a whole, but on that specific decision, given the particular parameters that he has put forward, and he would be making a proper decision about sustainability. It would not be about “taken as a whole”, as he has interpreted it. He would have interpreted that phrase as meaning that one can score off sustainability with other interests. I am saying that the definition of sustainability—this is why the question of how one defines sustainability is so important—involves making the sort of decision that the hon. Gentleman has just made. We disagree about the third runway at Heathrow because I do not believe that it is necessary, because there are other ways of doing things, and because the proposition that he put forward is not true as it would not stop anyone else from building runways. Indeed, it would encourage them. Therefore, the proposal is not sustainable.
If the Minister continues to use his argument, he is making the same references as I have made. He does not need the words “taken as a whole”. That is what we are arguing about, not a runway. The phrase is not necessary to defend him in his position. If it were left in the clause, it would enable someone to decide to have a third runway, even though that person had not made out a sustainable case for it.

Phil Woolas: Fascinating, except that the Bill requires those criteria to be judged. The logical consequence of the right hon. Gentleman’s principled stand is that we would not need the rest of the Bill. We would not need carbon budgeting, carbon trading and the other things that we have been talking about. We would simply say that an individual action must contribute in and of itself to sustainability. I simply do not agree.

Tony Baldry: Is not the candid explanation of why the Government do not want to remove the phrase that if they were to do so, it would be possible for any group to go to the High Court for judicial review and say that a particular development was not sustainable development? There would thus be an argument with the courts about a nuclear power station, for example. That is why the Government want the phrase. As I said earlier, they are desperate to ensure that the Bill, when enacted, does not get anywhere near the courts. It has been judicially proofed so that it cannot be challenged.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman must have been reading the Daily Mail. He is inculcated with cynicism. We included the provision in response to the other place, not out of fear of judicial action. I was trying to help. Sometimes when we read the Daily Mail, we conclude that we should not have bothered.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal outlined an important position and showed the evolution of his policies and politics. I am not sure that his point is shared by the hon. Members for Vale of York and for Bexhill and Battle, nor do I think that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) would agree with it because there would be huge consequences. However, I am repeating myself, so I shall now sit down and shut up.

David Maclean: I have listened carefully to the debate and I am not convinced that the Minister has spelled out a good, sound British definition of sustainable development, as I had hoped initially. The hon. Gentleman’s heart is in the right place, as is the Government’s, but I do not know where their head is. Perhaps the cause is my thick head. I do not understand fully what the hon. Gentleman was attempting to say and I am not sure that has he cut through the confusion of the plethora of definitions of sustainable development that exist throughout the world.
The Gro Harlem Brundtland Commission was a good starting point. When we were in Rio, the definition,
“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”
was quoted about 10 times a day. It is simple and straightforward, but applying it to every aspect of business and industrial development, agriculture, farming, mining, quarrying, building and our lifestyle, and then to the lifestyle of other countries with completely different economic systems, takes us into severe trouble.
I do not want to prolong the debate. I want the phrase to stay in the Bill, so of course I shall not press the amendment to a Division. I will conclude by trying to shed some light on the Home Office windows and HFCs. I did not intervene in the debate—it might have been regarded as facetious—but I spent four years in the old building, where we were not allowed to open the windows because the top half was heavier than the bottom half. They were hinged, almost in the middle, and the top half could swing round, hit someone on the back of the head and knock them down seven storeys on to the Scots Guards’ parade ground below. The answer to the problem is not whether the gas is an HFC or another one, but to let us just open the windows in future, rather than use millions of pounds worth of air-conditioning. The same may apply in this Room in future.
At times, when we are looking at such highly complex subjects, we ought to get back to a bit of simplicity. The concept of sustainable development is simple. It is important. It is something to which Parliament will return again and again, not necessarily in the Bill, but on other occasions. It should stay in the Bill, but I hope that in future the Government will be clearer about what they mean by sustainable development. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Duty to report on proposals and policies for meeting carbon budgets

Phil Woolas: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in clause 14, page 7, line 20, leave out ‘Prime Minister’ and insert ‘Secretary of State’.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 5.
Amendment No. 33, in clause 18, page 10, line 4, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘Prime Minister’.
Amendment No. 76, in clause 36, page 19, line 10, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘Prime Minister’.
Amendment No. 77, in clause 36, page 19, line 13, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘Prime Minister’.
Amendment No. 85, in clause 36, page 19, line 19, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘Prime Minister’.

Phil Woolas: We move on to clause 14. The reason for the clause is that an essential objective of the Bill is to provide transparency about the Government’s plans and actions for tackling climate change. As part of that transparency, the Bill requires the United Kingdom Government to publish their proposals for meeting each carbon budget. The report produced must be laid before Parliament as soon as is reasonably practical after the setting of the budget. By providing a clear indication of the strategy, the Government aim to reinforce business and public confidence that robust plans are in place to ensure that the budget will be met.
The 15-year plans published under clause 14—the three five-year budgets—play an important part in providing the greater predictability that the Bill aims to introduce. Businesses and households that are planning investments will want to know not just the overall level of the UK-wide budget, but the choice of policies that could be implemented to ensure that the budgets are met.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced that the first three carbon budgets and the plans for meeting them will be set out alongside the 2009 Budget. That timing draws an important parallel, also made by the Chancellor. Just as our public finances must balance over an economic cycle, so we must live within our carbon budgets for the health of the wider world and, therefore, for ourselves. The report will be crucial in bringing together a range of policies and showing how they will combine to meet the carbon budget. That will be a combination of existing measures—those, for example, contained in the energy White Paper—and new measures, to be announced within the report or over the months before its publication.
At present, clause 14 places the duty on the Prime Minister, reflecting a change made to the Bill in the other place. I agree that, to tackle climate change, we need a strong effort, not just across Government, but across society as a whole. All parts of our society will have a role to play. It is also the case that the Prime Minister is personally committed to the fight against climate change.

Gregory Barker: The Minister refers to the Prime Minster who, with the best will in the world, does not have a long tenure left. Speaking about legislation that he hopes will run to 2050, surely the Minister cannot make such a reference and expect the Committee to accept arguments based solely on the current occupant of No. 10? We do not know what the personal commitment of any given incumbent of No. 10 will be in 2020, 2030 or 2040. It does the Minister no good at all to set out a personal conviction about the current, temporary occupant of No. 10 when defending the legislation.

Phil Woolas: I am grateful for the intervention. I was taking the opportunity to make a partisan point. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee do that and the Government have the right to do so as well. I do not argue that we should take direct reference to the Prime Minister of the day out of the Bill because the current Prime Minister is personally committed to the policy goals of the Bill. My argument is based on the definitions of how we make legislation in this country. Bills refer to the duties of the Secretary of State and throughout the years that has clearly been interpreted to mean the Government collectively. That is why actions and instructions are given in that way.
By placing specific duties on the Prime Minister of the day, the wrong interpretation could be given and political mischief could be made. The Daily Mail and TheGuardian might suggest that not putting the words “the Prime Minister” in the Bill could be interpreted as meaning that the individual Prime Minister of the day was not committed to the aims of the Bill, which would not be fair.

David Maclean: Please correct me if I am wrong, but does not Lord Stern continue to report to the Prime Minister on forestry issues? If that is the case, surely it is inconsistent for the clause to refer to the Secretary of State instead.

Phil Woolas: Knowing Lord Stern of Brentford, I do not think that he considers that he reports to anyone. He says what he thinks and he says it robustly. I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s argument. Amendment No. 33 would have the effect of transferring further responsibilities to the Prime Minister as an individual, in this case in relation to the report required under clause 18. Amendments Nos. 76, 77 and 85 would transfer responsibility to the Prime Minister individually for laying before Parliament the Government’s response to the annual report of the committee, as required under clause 36. I have explained why we disagree with the amendments, and I have moved new clauses to give responsibility to the Secretary of State, which, let me make it clear, means the Government collectively.

Gregory Barker: My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border makes a good point about Lord Stern, but he is not the only senior policy adviser on climate change issues who reports not to DEFRA but to the Prime Minister. Johan Eliasch, whom the Prime Minister trumpeted with great publicity last year during his brief honeymoon, is another individual who reports directly, privately—I have not seen any of his advice published or any interviews that he has given—and confidentially to the Prime Minister. How are those considerations likely to be elucidated by the Secretary of State for the Environment?

Phil Woolas: We are talking about law. It is the custom and practice in the United Kingdom Houses of Parliament that duties are placed upon the Secretary of State. As I have already explained, that means the Government collectively. The Secretary of State delegates his or her duties to his or her Ministers and we are all appointed by and are accountable to the Prime Minister. That is clearly understood.
There are two intentions behind placing the duty on the Prime Minister. One is including the Prime Minister’s name as an indication that the Government accept that this is a most important matter—we have described it as the most important matter facing humankind. The argument put by others is, I believe, politically motivated, given that a responsible Minister would take the advice of parliamentary counsel. There are important reasons why, under legal process, the Secretary of State is used. I am advised that it is not possible to take legal action against the Prime Minister individually. It is possible to take action against the Secretary of State only, the meaning of which is the Secretaries of State collectively. There is good motive and bad motive behind this attempt to include the Prime Minister. As ever, I am being honest with the Committee.

Tony Baldry: Can the Minister help me on a boring machinery of government point? We all understand how, for example, public spending is worked out. Departmental Secretaries of State have bilaterals with the Chief Secretary and eventually the Budget gets carved up. Clearly, getting the carbon budget sorted out will require a fair amount of negotiation among various Departments as to where the burdens fall. It would help the Committee if we could understand whether a Cabinet Sub-Committee will do this and, if so, whether that will be chaired by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Given that I suspect that there will be some fairly serious horse trading on this matter, one might imagine that, at some stage, the Prime Minister—whoever that might be—will have to adjudicate. Can the Minister give us some guidance on the machinery of government process for setting the budget? That is something of a policy wonk question, but the answer will be helpful to the Committee.

Phil Woolas: That is an important question. I bet that neither the Daily Mail nor The Guardian will report the answer, but that is probably because it is an important subject. I shall stop making digs at those two newspapers as it is probably a bad career move.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is, as he will expect, that the Cabinet will take overall responsibility, but there is an existing Sub-Committee on Environment and Energy—the ED(EE). I occasionally get sent to it. The Cabinet Sub-Committee is dedicated to the environment and energy and is chaired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Its membership includes the Secretaries of State with responsibility for environment, energy, transport and communities and local government, and people from other Departments. That Committee has been established under the authority of the Prime Minister to take collective decisions in this area. We envisage that the Cabinet itself will take the final decision. I hope that that has shed some light on how we intend to proceed.
Several hon. Membersrose—

Phil Woolas: Rather than stopping interventions, I have now prompted more, as transparency always does.

Nick Hurd: Will the Minister confirm that Prime Minister Blair chaired the energy and climate change Sub-Committee under the previous Administration?

Phil Woolas: I cannot confirm that, but I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman. The Cabinet Sub-Committee structure is much improved in my view. It is much more streamlined, much clearer and more pragmatic. Sofa government has ended and proper decisions are taken in proper places under the new structure, which I welcome. The hon. Member for Banbury asked an important question because behind it is recognition of the importance of the carbon budget-setting process and the policy-setting process that flows from that.

Steve Webb: One of the Minister’s arguments against including the words “Prime Minister” in the provision was essentially that we do not do that kind of thing in legislation. I am sure that he will have been briefed and will thus be aware that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 places a duty on the Prime Minister to report to Parliament. One reason for that was that there were concerns about the power and it was felt necessary to assure people that the Prime Minister was involved. If it was okay in that instance, is not the present one even more important?

Phil Woolas: Perhaps I may deal first with the point made by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood: the previous Prime Minister chaired the previous Committee on energy and the environment, and the Deputy Prime Minister was the deputy Chairman. The Committee is now chaired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood on his recollection and, perhaps, homework.
To return to the question asked by the hon. Member for Northavon, there is a difference. I have checked out the list of things that the Prime Minister is required by legislation to do, in contexts where my predecessors as Ministers in this situation lost the argument. There are some pretty obscure ones, but the difference is that the very nature of the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman accepts, is to put a legal duty on the Government to meet their carbon budget. It is not possible, I am advised, to take legal action against the Prime Minister. Legal processes relate to the Secretary of State. That should give the hon. Gentleman the reassurances that he needs.

Anne McIntosh: I mean to help the Minister. He says that he does not want the Prime Minister to be mentioned in place of the Secretary of State in the provision because the legal action that might arise could be pursued against only Secretaries of State collectively. However, does he realise that what we want the Prime Minister to do in this instance is report on the policies, not deliver on them? If we consider the percentage of carbon emissions for which DEFRA is responsible, the Minister will know that the bulk of such emissions fall to other Departments. That is an additional reason to agree to including the Prime Minister in the provision—purely with respect to the duty to report to Parliament—rather than the Department, whose duty it will be to deliver.

Phil Woolas: I take the hon. Lady’s point, although I am disappointed that she does not support my efforts to increase the standing of the work of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in future—the provision would have consequences in that regard. My arguments about breaking with the way we do things remain valid—I do not use the term “break with tradition”, as I am all in favour of that if it makes an improvement, unlike, often, the hon. Lady’s party. The traditionalist wing of the Conservative party argues that we should keep things as they are unless there is a good reason not to. A good reason has not been put forward. Therefore, to be consistent, the traditionalists should support the status quo.
My point is that there is a good reason for designating Secretaries of State in law, rather than the Prime Minister or other Ministers. It is not just a matter of tradition, but part of our legal framework. I ask the Committee to accept my explanation. I think that I have answered the question asked by the hon. Member for Banbury by explaining the seriousness that is given to the matter within the machinery of Government. I hope that the matter will not be pressed to a vote.

Gregory Barker: I also want to move amendments Nos. 46 and 47 to 51.

Frank Cook: Order. The amendments being debated with amendment No. 4 are Government amendment No. 5 and amendments Nos. 33, 76, 77 and 85. Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 to 51 are in the next group and are not to be discussed yet.

John Gummer: I feel very strongly about this matter and think the Minister has been ill advised as to why this is so necessary. I remember when we started on this whole course, when the then Prime Minister set up the first committee that was to report on these matters, under Sir Crispin Tickell. That committee reported directly to the Prime Minister; that was the purpose of it. Sir Crispin had access to the Prime Minister. He reported to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister presented such reports as he made. That was done so that we could say that the issue of climate change was so important that it had to be a central concern of the Government as a whole.
That was in the days in which there was a much stronger Department of the Environment in the simple sense that—and I make no criticism—it had control of local authorities. It spent a quarter of the budget of the nation. It controlled planning, water and other resources. It was a Ministry that had in its own hands the mechanisms of delivery of many of the issues of sustainable development. In particular, it had the mechanisms by which we would meet our carbon budget. Even in those circumstances, and with a Secretary of State whom I think most would admit actually cared about these matters, and was in the same position as the present Secretary of State for EFRA—I am not making a distinction—it was felt by the Government to be far too important not to commit the Prime Minister to that purpose.
In the days when I had to explain that, because the concept of climate change was nothing like as central as it is today, I used to use the example of the Health and Safety Executive’s belief that if one runs a business, even if one has a special health and safety director or officer, health and safety should be the responsibility of the chief operating officer. In every company on whose board I have ever sat, I have always insisted that that should happen. Only by doing that does one say that the most important thing about the business is that people go away at the end of the day as healthy as they can. That is duty No. 1 of any employer. It is a mechanism of showing that a business has chosen to emphasise what is the key issue for its future.
The key issue for the future of the United Kingdom and the world is dealing with climate change. In history, in circumstances when that was much less understood, the Prime Minister took that responsibility. Rather slowly, it has emerged that under the Cabinet arrangements under the previous Prime Minister, he took that view too. I remember the announcement when he said that he had to be chairman of this, and the Deputy Prime Minister had to be his deputy, because it was so important. I did not choose the Deputy Prime Minister; he did, and that is the situation, but if he were the Prime Minister, that was the right thing to do.
The body is now chaired, if I may so, by the one man who appears to know nothing at all about the issue, but who is there because it is accepted that one cannot deal with these matters unless not just the responsibilities of DEFRA, but the energy bit as well, are treated together. As neither of those Secretaries of State could chair it, we have to have somebody else. As happens in all Governments, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is given the job, whether he knows anything about it or cares about it. I think that that is a thoroughly bad way forward.
In the quality of life commission that I had the honour to chair, we proposed that the new Department that we would create would be a much more powerful version of DEFRA and would retain and bring back some of the powers that were sadly removed from it ad hominem, or ad feminem—we all know how DEFRA was created. Our idea was that there would be somebody in that Department who was the equivalent of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury so that it was accepted that the carbon budget would be a tough one and somebody in that Department—the Minister might find himself in that position—would have the power that the Chief Secretary has to say not just to DEFRA, but to all Departments, “You have to meet the budget.” No doubt people would come to that Minister, even though he was a junior in the Cabinet. The one time someone goes to a junior Minister is when they go to the Chief Secretary to argue their case. The Secretary of State for Defence would be there arguing with the Minister about his carbon budget, although the hon. Gentleman would then be a right hon. Gentleman and a very powerful man.
That is the concept that we had. We recognise that it demands a serious change in the structure of Government. If we could have put that in the Bill, that would have been good. It would be non-party political to say that the two Departments created ad hominem and ad feminam have failed because they were each built for a person and not for a purpose. That is one of the problems with the Department for Communities and Local Government, and it is the problem with DEFRA too. I have no doubt that any Government, including the present one, will change the structure of Government given the effluxion of time, so that they face what has to be done, rather than operating on the basis of personalities, of who has to be given what.
If that is the case, we will have a more powerful DEFRA, so the argument could be that DEFRA should have the responsibility. However, that argument does not stand, for a simple reason. It will be an uphill battle for all of us to make people understand that doing the job that we need to do is the central purpose of Government. We need those token statements. I say that as a traditionalist. We should never change things unless we can show that they are broken, but if we can show that they are broken, we should change them rapidly. The present system is broken. The Department is not strong enough. It does not even chair the Committee that it should be dealing with. There is nobody in the Department who has ever shown that he could make other Ministers meet DEFRA’s the demands. I say that with great sadness, because it ought not to be so.
We have to find a way through, and I beg the Minister to think again. He is making the situation worse. He knows perfectly well that if we had “Prime Minister” in those places in the Bill, the difficult legal situations would not matter a fig. I remind the Minister what I said about the lawyers in the Department of the Environment when I went there: they are there to deliver what the Government want in a way that makes what the Government want legal. They are not there to explain to the Government why they cannot have what they want. If the Government wanted the words “Prime Minister” in the Bill, they would appear there. That is a fact. The Government would tell the lawyers to go where they ought to go, to the underground dungeon where they find the legal mechanisms to deliver the policies that the Government decide on.
I do not support the proposition of the interesting argument about who one can sue who for what. I just want to say to the Minister that if he takes the words “Prime Minister” out of the Bill, he will say something very clearly to the public. He may not mean it, but he will say, “The Government do not take the same view of the importance of the Bill as the House of Lords took.” It may have been better for the House of Lords not to put “Prime Minister” in, although I do not happen to think so, but as those words now appear in the Bill, I beg the Minister not to remove them.

Tony Baldry: Should not the Committee take notice of the House of Lords on the issue? The House of Lords has a large number of people, such as Lord Wakeham, who have been through the process so often and who have understood at the sharp end how the machinery of government works. The other House collectively put that in because it recognised that the carbon budget will work only with such a mechanism.

John Gummer: I am sure that is right, but I want the Minister to take seriously what he would be doing by taking “Prime Minister” out. First, I do not think it will be out permanently—the House of Lords will put it back in again, because it is so clearly important. The public will see taking it out as the Government resiling from the centrality of the issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle was right to point out that the issue is not about the present Prime Minister. Many of us have our doubts about the present Prime Minister and his commitment to climate change, but some people do not have those doubts. That argument is perfectly reasonable and even party political, but I do not mind. The measure relates to any Prime Minister. I want the incoming Prime Minister to know that the issue is his or her responsibility. I want people to recognise that until 2050 that is their responsibility, in a way that nothing else is. That it is not in any other Bill, because the Bill is not the same as other Bills. No other Bill has ever laid such responsibilities on the Government. No other Bill has ever looked forward, specifically, to a point so many years ahead. That is why the Bill is important. If the Minister goes on in this way, I am seriously worried about the impact that it will have.

Gregory Barker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the argument boils down to a simple issue—leadership? On the issue of climate change, which runs across the economy and society, involving every aspect of our national life, not having the Prime Minister at the helm sends an extraordinarily confusing and weak message to the British electorate. The issue is so important, yet it can be devolved to a Secretary of State whom they may never have heard of.

John Gummer: I hope the Government will show a greater awareness of public feeling about the matter than has sometimes been true of late. The Minister is the sort of Minister who might understand that. I very much hope that he will desist from pressing the amendments.

Martin Horwood: I oppose Government amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
The Minister has great intellectual powers, but even those are stretched by trying to justify the removal of the words “Prime Minister” from clause 14. He seriously suggested that it was less confusing to have the words “Secretary of State” in the Bill, arguing that that somehow implied responsibility across Government. From our earlier debates, it is clear that the confusion would be far greater if the words “Secretary of State” appeared in the Bill.
As the hon. Member for South Swindon rightly pointed out, we are not talking about the delivery of the policies in detail. We are talking about a duty to report to Parliament. That seems an easy duty to lay, legally, on the Prime Minister. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal is exactly right. When I was in business, lawyers were paid to tell us how to do things, not paid to tell us how not to do them or why they are impossible.
It is important for the words to be retained and extended to clause 18 as well, and to clause 36 to take account not only of the initial proposals and policies for meeting carbon budgets, but of the duty to report on compensation for budget excess, if that occurs, and to respond to the committee’s periodic reports on progress. Amendment No. 85 spotted a reference to the Secretary of State that we had not identified, although probably not the most crucial one, in respect of the person who lays the order. However, I am happy to support it, for the sake of consistency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon, with uncharacteristic unkindness, once referred to DEFRA as a “piddling little Department”. Let me put it more sympathetically. Staff and Ministers at DEFRA have often proved themselves very committed and very understanding of the issues of climate change. Indeed, its former Ministers have periodically added to the ranks of the greenest Members of Parliament. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal is a case in point, but there are some on the Labour benches as well. If DEFRA is piddling, it is at least piddling in the right direction. The risk is that it is simply outgunned by much more significant Departments.
The Department for Communities and Local Government refuses to accept that housing targets should be amended in a housing downturn, when the growth rate is half the rate anticipated when those targets were set. The Department refuses to accept any arguments about the environmental consequences of ploughing ahead with those high housing numbers without democratic consultation at local level.
When large amounts of land are cleared for development—both greenfield and brownfield, to accommodate extremely high numbers—the result is that, in a downturn, the greenfield sites, having been released for development and being the more profitable, are developed first, so the environmental damage is greater. The argument should be in favour of sustainable development, and the understanding of sustainable development should be promoted in order to change such policies.
The Department for Transport, contrary to what the Minister implied, is giving a green light to the third runway at Heathrow and is responsible for policies relating to the level of investment in our railways. It seems an opportune moment to mention the Swindon-Kemble line, a crucial part of that investment, where the doubling of capacity needed would help to take people out of their cars in large numbers and stop them travelling from my constituency to Swindon to avoid the terrible rail service that we have at present. Such investment is crucial to the local battle against climate change.
The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform proudly boasts of its support for renewables, but refuses to accept feed-in tariffs in the passage of the Energy Bill—[Interruption.] The Minister chunters, but we were in the Committee at which feed-in tariffs were specifically rejected by the Minister for Energy. They have been pushed into the long grass, or at least the medium-length grass, for yet more consultation, and could take years to implement. DBERR also endorsed the building of Kingsnorth power station, with CO2 emissions 70 per cent. higher than any alternative.
Mr. Woolasindicated dissent.

Steve Webb: The Minister shakes his head, but I have been on the Environmental Audit Committee when Energy Ministers defended the building of Kingsnorth without locking in carbon capture and storage technology.

Frank Cook: Order. I remind the Committee that we are engaged in line-by-line scrutiny, which is a very good principle. I ask the Committee to look at the amendment under consideration, which reads:
“leave out ‘Prime Minister’ and insert ‘Secretary of State’.”

Martin Horwood: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Cook, and of course you are right. I should have been pointing out on each of the examples that DCLG is responsible not to DEFRA, but to the Prime Minister, that the Department for Transport is responsible not to DEFRA, but to the Prime Minister, and that DBERR is responsible to the Prime Minister, as is the Treasury, whose green taxes are such a crucial element of the battle against climate change. We are seeing the potential undermining of public support for green taxation because of the Treasury’s unwillingness to link green taxes explicitly to reductions in other taxes to make it clear that it is revenue-neutral.
The international Departments are similarly responsible to the Prime Minister and not to DEFRA. They are responsible for climate change negotiations at international level and for policies that will influence the way in which Governments all over the world tackle climate change in their own environments.

Karen Buck: Is it not also true that all the examples cited by the hon. Gentleman would, under the Bill, be subordinate to the targets that we are setting for CO2 emissions, so the issue of who is responsible is irrelevant?

Martin Horwood: The hon. Lady makes an important point, but it actually supports our argument for having the Prime Minister’s name on the face of the Bill. It is precisely because all the policies and proposals set out in clause 14 will be implemented by a range of Departments that it is important to make a Minister responsible for them and for laying the report before Parliament. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs simply will not be responsible for most of those policies and their impacts.

Steve Webb: Further to my hon. Friend’s response, is it not also the case that there is an aggregate target for the whole of Government, rather than individual Departments? If the Prime Minister is not responsible, the Department for Transport might say that it would only do a small bit of the work, although it felt that the Government targets were great, because someone else should have the hassle of doing the rest of it. Only the Prime Minister has the authority to bang heads together.

Martin Horwood: My hon. Friend is exactly correct. We are all familiar with the experience of trying to raise an issue that seems to blur boundaries at ministerial questions and being told by the relevant Minister that it is a matter not for them, but for one of their colleagues.
DEFRA’s website sets out the precise impact of the various areas with regard to carbon emissions. The 2006 figures showed a UK total of 554 million tonnes. Of those, 221 million tonnes came directly from energy supply, which is the responsibility of DBERR and through it the Prime Minister, but not DEFRA. Business contributes 92 million tonnes, which, again, is the responsibility of DBERR and the Prime Minister, but not of DEFRA. Transport contributes 133 million tonnes, which is the responsibility of the Department for Transport, and the residential sector contributes 81 tonnes, which is largely the responsibility of the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Prime Minister, but, again, not of DEFRA.
The only areas that are directly attributable to DEFRA’s responsibility were the 4.5 million tonnes of CO2 from agriculture and 400,000 tonnes of CO2 from waste management. Obviously, the picture on methane is different, but even in that regard a substantial amount comes from non-DEFRA areas of responsibility. Some of the larger sources of emissions, such as transport and energy supply, are still increasing, so it is vitally important not to send the wrong signals on who will take responsibility.
This is both a political and a legal issue. Politically, the rapier-like question from the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood precisely highlighted why we have to worry about a lack of interest from the Prime Minister on the issue. The fact that the Prime Minister has decided to abandon the chairmanship of that vital committee is possibly an indication, which Opposition politicians fear, that he is losing interest. This is a wonderful political opportunity to reinforce the Prime Minister’s personal commitment and ensure that all future Prime Ministers are held similarly accountable.
In legal terms, my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon briefly mentioned two pieces of legislation that set an important precedent—the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. As GCHQ is located in my constituency, I am particularly pleased with those examples. The point is that they cover an important matter of absolutely vital national interest. It was for that reason that the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), made it clear why the powers in that Bill were being laid on the Prime Minister and not on himself. He said that it would offer public reassurance on the use of powers in that Bill, and the power given to the Prime Minister was to lay before both Houses of Parliament a copy of every annual report made by the interception of communications commissioner under subsection (4), together with a statement on whether any matter had been excluded from that copy in pursuance of subsection (7).
That is an identical kind of reporting requirement to those that we are discussing in relation to the clause. If it was legal for him, why is it not legal under the Bill? That seems to be a powerful legal argument. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal made an eloquent plea for the Minister not to wriggle out of the situation on legalistic grounds. That is exactly right, otherwise we might suspect that fiddling is still a more appropriate description.

Michael Weir: The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal made an impassioned plea, and I endorse his argument. Throughout our discussions, we have been saying that the United Kingdom is a leader and is making a strong commitment by drafting the first Bill on carbon reductions. A further signal would be to include the Prime Minister in the Bill to show that the reduction of carbon emissions is the greatest issue of our age.
On a more practical level, over the years carbon budgets will perhaps become the most important part of the Government’s business in setting the carbon target to 2050. It will be a cross-departmental process, and it will undoubtedly mean great squabbling between Departments on how the carbon cuts are allocated. As has been pointed out, many carbon-emitting industries are not under the control of DEFRA. At present, 37.4 per cent. of carbon emissions come from the energy industry, and 17.8 per cent. come from other industries—both sets of emissions are under the control of DBERR. In effect, more than 50 per cent. of all carbon emissions come from its departmental portfolio. It might therefore be more appropriate for DBERR to have control of carbon emissions, not DEFRA. The decarbonisation of our energy supplies will be crucial in whether we can reduce carbon emissions in the first place, irrespective of what form of energy we might support in the future.
I ask the Minister to consider a point to which he has referred on several occasions. The reduction of carbon emissions concerns not only the UK Government, but devolved Administrations. There will have to be great contact between the various Administrations to reach agreement on how they tackle their part of carbon reduction. For example, the Scottish Parliament is to have its own climate change Bill, which is due to be published shortly. There will be similar movement in Wales as the Assembly gain more powers, which will happen under the measures currently passing through this place. The same will apply to Northern Ireland, so there will have to be great contact between the First Ministers of the devolved Administrations, along with the Prime Minister, through the Joint Ministerial Committees.
If we are to impose reductions and agreement is to be reached between Departments and the devolved Administrations, the matter must be under the personal control of the Prime Minister. They must provide leadership to show that we are all working together and demonstrate the importance of such matters throughout the United Kingdom. The clause needs to retain reference to the Prime Minister in order to send out a clear signal.

Anne McIntosh: The most disappointing part of the Minister’s speech was his not accepting the outcome of the debate and the vote in the other place. We are not convinced by his argument why the Prime Minister should not play such a role. As I said earlier, the Prime Minister should report. We are not asking the Prime Minister to deliver, but it is only the Prime Minister—whoever they may be—who has the international status and the domestic gravitas to report on such issues.
As for percentages, the energy industry, which falls to DBERR, is responsible for more than 37 per cent. of carbon emissions. Road transport alone, which falls to the Department for Transport, accounts for more than 21 per cent., and other industries, which presumably include aviation, shipping and others, account for almost 18 per cent. and fall partly to the DBERR and partly to DEFRA. Residential households produce 15 per cent., and the hon. Member for Cheltenham has said that agriculture, farming and waste management constitute the small amount for which DEFRA is responsible. I am not convinced by the Minister’s argument, although I welcome his assurances that he wants to give more certainty to households and businesses.
Mention has been made of the Department’s clout and responsibilities. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal referred to the Conservative party’s quality of life policy group and proposals for beefing up the Department, and I believe that his point was much more convincing. How does the Minister respond to that?
Clearly, the Prime Minister should be responsible for reporting to Parliament on the matters before us. Page 18 of the Government’s final impact assessment states:
“Overall costs can be minimised by setting the right policies in place to incentivise the most cost-effective methods of mitigation.”
Surely, that should be a role for the Prime Minister, not individual Secretaries of State—albeit through the Secretary of State with responsibility for the environment.
Paragraph 2.3.10 on page 19 of the impact assessment states:
“The choice of policy instrument is also likely to have a significant distributional effect: regulation, market mechanisms or fiscal measures will have divergent distributional impacts.”
That assessment goes on to argue that businesses and households are looking for continuity and determination in the Government’s policy from the outset. However, in moving the amendment, I did not hear from the Minister why he believes that a Secretary of State is better placed to fulfil that responsibility. Under the Intelligence Services Act 1994, which was passed by a Conservative Government, the Prime Minister has duties similar to those before us today and must report on national security. The hon. Member for Cheltenham gave a similar example, but there are also less obscure ones. For example, let us bear in mind that a previous chief scientific adviser has said that climate change is the greatest threat facing this country.
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) stated:
“The real test of the Bill will be whether it changes the mindset in Whitehall and Westminster to ensure that respect for the environment truly finds a place at the heart of policy making and Government practice.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2008; Vol. 477, c. 56.]
We believe that DEFRA is already collapsing under the weight of its responsibilities for flooding, farming, food, nuclear waste, water supply, fishing, coastal erosion and biodiversity. It has enough on its plate without being asked to do this as well. We are not trying to give the Prime Minister a vast number of new tasks.
When the Prime Minister’s initial reporting duties were first mooted in the other place, the Bill contained more of them than it does now. Most of them dealt with reporting on facts and other historical issues, which would not change as a result of the Prime Minister making the statement and producing the report. Such responsibilities would require the Prime Minister to report only on aspects of the Bill that are truly and inevitably cross-departmental. Those responsibilities are, first, that the Prime Minister must respond in Parliament to the Committee on Climate Change’s annual report on national progress towards meeting out carbon budgets, and, secondly, that the Prime Minister must report on Government strategies for meeting those budgets. The second duty would occur approximately every five years. The Prime Minister would be required, therefore, to produce just one report to Parliament per year on certain matters, plus an additional report on strategy approximately every five years. If the Minister puts the matter to a vote and wins, I hope that he will at some stage—either when he sums up this group of amendments or on another occasion—specify what additional resources will be made available to his Department to draw together those strands. Lord Rooker clearly stated to the EFRA Committee, on which I have the honour to serve, that there will be no further legislation or responsibilities, because the Department has no resources.

Tony Baldry: Since the Bill was debated on Second Reading, Lord Stern has advised that the cost of tackling global climate change has doubled from his original estimate of 1 per cent. of GDP to 2 per cent. Introducing carbon budgets will not be painless, and there will be a hit on various sections of the economy. We all know that those various sectors will go to their sponsoring Departments and make special pleas as to why they should take less of the hit on carbon budgets than other areas of the economy. That will particularly be the case in a time such as this, when the economy is in some difficulty. One only has to pick up the business section of any national newspaper or look at shares in the house building industry to know that it is having a difficult time. I suspect that many in the house building industry will then go off to the Department for Communities and Local Government, which sponsors the construction sector, and say, “We should not have to take such a great hit because of the impact that this will have on us in a difficult economy.” Therefore, someone within the machinery of government will have to make some fairly difficult decisions on how the carbon budget is allocated.
This is a totemic Bill and a totemic clause. If the present Government wish to remove the clause from the Bill, it is a matter for them, but it will send out a clear political signal. I just hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) makes it clear that when he becomes Prime Minister, he will chair the appropriate Cabinet Committee. He, as Prime Minister, will chair the Committee and every other Secretary of State will know that they answer to the Prime Minister. I have to say that going to a Cabinet Committee chaired by the Prime Minister concentrates the minds of Secretaries of State and junior Ministers wondrously. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal were here, he would agree with me, as would my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border.
I am quite sure that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney becomes Prime Minister, he will personally present this report to Parliament. By omission and by their actions, if the present Government and the governing party wish to make that political point, it is up to them. However, without changing the legislation and without having to amend an Act of Parliament, an incoming Prime Minister can achieve what he wishes to achieve by making it very clear that that is how he intends to conduct business in Whitehall. In so doing, he will make a very clear statement that by voting blue, a person goes green.

Phil Woolas: We have had an important debate on what I thought was a minor amendment. Perhaps, in addition to my previous argument, I should put some arguments in response to Committee members. We have had a number of thoughtful interventions, and I do not think that hon. Members are trying to cause political embarrassment.
The hon. Member for Banbury has said that it is a matter for the Government and that the Government should live with the consequences, and I understand his point. Let me put the arguments specifically and then generally. Amendments Nos. 33, 76, 77 and 85 relate to later clauses in the Bill and have been tabled by the hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Northavon. They relate to subsections (1), (2) and (5) of clause 36, and they create specific duties in relation to specific actions—for example, the Prime Minister, rather than the Secretary of State, may by order extend the period in the Bill and must consult the other national authorities.
Let me repeat, however, that when one uses the phrase “Secretary of State”, it means Secretaries of State collectively. Clearly, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is not the only Secretary of State to discuss issues with the devolved Administrations; as we all know, the Transport Secretary, the Defence Secretary and others also do so. Some of the amendments are therefore too prescriptive and do not meet the general point that hon. Members have made, because they do not signal the importance that the Government give those issues.
We gave a great deal of thought to our reasons for not supporting these amendments and for resisting the amendments in the other place. We want to create machinery of government that makes the Bill work precisely because of the point made by the hon. Member for Banbury. We are talking about important decisions, and there will inevitably be disagreements and conflicts in government.
The hon. Member for Vale of York talked about the respective sponsored emissions by transport and business. Again, I can answer her point technically by saying that the phrase “Secretary of State” refers to Secretaries of State collectively. However, let me draw a parallel with finance, because Opposition Members’ arguments on carbon budgets and reporting duties also apply to finance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer reports the finance Budget, but one does not hear the argument that the Prime Minister should do so or, by implication, that the Budget is not an important document. We decided against naming the Prime Minister, because we thought that that was tokenistic. We deem the carbon budget to be important, so we want it to work within the machinery of government.
I will not respond to the teasing of the hon. Member for Cheltenham, who implied that I was a piddling Minister. I will not tease him in return about his support for GCHQ, although I thought that he was against surveillance and things of that nature.

Martin Horwood: I am grateful to the Minister for trying to assure us that it is less confusing to have the Bill refer to the Secretary of State than the Prime Minister. Will he explain precisely how clause 18 would work? If we went over the carbon budget, and Secretaries of State—plural—had to lay reports before Parliament, would the Chancellor be the first one to do so because of the taxation issues, and would he then be followed by the Secretary of State for Transport, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and so on? Alternatively, would the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs somehow include their reports in his? How could that possibly work in practice?

Phil Woolas: It is a fair question. It would be the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. What I am trying to get across, however, is that when the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary makes such a report to Parliament, it will be cleared across Government, as is the case with all written and oral statements and with reports that are required by statute. That is how the Secretary of State represents the Government collectively. The question of which individual lays the report is not as important as the machinery of government behind it, which entails a collective decision. I will follow that line of argument.

Martin Horwood: If the carbon budget was missed overwhelmingly because of the contribution of transport—let us say that aviation emissions had got out of control and that that was the key political issue—would the Secretary of State for DEFRA answer questions about emissions and defend aviation policy on behalf of the Department for Transport?

Phil Woolas: That is how government works. I have already been quizzed about Heathrow this morning. Transport Ministers often have to answer for policies that are not directly within their remit, which is the point. We believe that including the individual title “Prime Minister” in the amendments is a token—let me put it that way—if not tokenism, which is not the best way for the Government to work. That is why we urge the Committee to resist the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham amendments and return to this clause what was taken out in the other place.

Gregory Barker: The Minister bases his case on procedures and mechanisms in the machinery of government, but does it not boil down simply to political clout? He has made a comparison with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the Chancellor lives at No. 11 Downing street, immediately adjacent to the Prime Minister, and occupies a great and historic office of state that sits at the very top of Cabinet precedent. With respect, unless the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary has a unique personal relationship with the Prime Minister, they will not have that standing in government. We know that, because that position is usually somewhere in the middle or right at the bottom of the list of Cabinet appointments. It is simply not living in the real world to compare the punch and political authority of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary with that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, let alone the Prime Minister.

Phil Woolas: I do not accept that that reflects an understanding of how government works. First, policies need to be cleared across government. Secondly, the introduction of carbon budgets greatly enhances the importance of the policy decisions that flow from them. If the hon. Gentleman accepts that—I think that he does, because he has said so—I am grateful to him for his view. The hon. Member for Banbury has also referred specifically to that point, and he must also accept that the machinery of government has to be able to cope. Just as finance decisions are addressed across Departments and the ring is held by the Treasury, so carbon budgets must be spread across government and the ring must be held by both the Treasury and DEFRA. We are not arguing about that. We are arguing whether the Prime Minister should be mentioned in the Bill, but the very nature of our system of government is that Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister, which is implicit.

Steve Webb: Does not the analogy with the Chancellor break down, because the Chancellor has one thing that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary does not have? The Chancellor raises money and allocates it to Departments, whereas the Environment Secretary does not have a pot of carbon to hand out between Departments and simply has to hit a target. If the Department for Transport or another Department were to say, “No; we want a bigger share of the carbon budget,” the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary would not have the clout to arbitrate and would have to go through the Prime Minister, which is why the Prime Minister should be accountable.

Phil Woolas: We are all accountable to the Prime Minister for everything. We are appointed by the Prime Minister and we are sacked by the Prime Minister. That is the way in which we run this Government. The Committee on Climate Change advises the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary, and in that analogy they have a carbon pot.
We are approaching lunch time, so I commend Government amendments Nos. 4 and 5 to the Committee and urge it to resist amendments Nos. 33, 76, 77 and 85.

Question put, that the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 8.

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after One o’clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at Four o’clock.